Napolitano: Contraception Mandate Includes Euthanasia

There have been some truly dumb things said about the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act, especially on Fox News, but this one should win some sort of prize. Andrew Napolitano told Megyn Kelly that the act forces insurance to pay for euthanasia. Needless to say, she did not correct him.

As everybody knows, the Affordable Care Act requires anybody that employs 50 or more people to provide health care for them that includes contraceptive services. Contraceptive services means contraception, euthanasia, and abortion.

Um. No. It doesn’t mean that. It doesn’t mean anything even remotely like that. As Amanda Marcotte said in response:

Of course, this is not true. The contraception mandate requires health insurance plans to cover Food and Drug Administration–approved contraception methods. Luckily for us, the FDA provides a handy list of the kinds of contraception methods it officially approves. Needless to say, none of them are euthanasia. Of course, none of them are abortion, either, but that hasn’t stopped conservative commentators from claiming otherwise. So, while you’re just making stuff up, why not go for broke?

How do we scare people into thinking the contraception mandate is particularly evil? We just reach into our handy dandy bag of scary terms and play Wingnut Madlibs. As usual.

About Ed Brayton

After spending several years touring the country as a stand up comedian, Ed Brayton tired of explaining his jokes to small groups of dazed illiterates and turned to writing as the most common outlet for the voices in his head. He has appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show and the Thom Hartmann Show, and is almost certain that he is the only person ever to make fun of Chuck Norris on C-SPAN.

  • eric

    I doubt he’s trying to scare old people into thinking it lets the government kill them. Far more likely, this is just standard pro-life rhetoric in which any drug that prevents a fertilized embryo from attaching is considered both an abortifacent and a euthanizer.

  • cptdoom

    No, no, he said “youth in Asia” – he was complaining about the ACA covering students studying abroad.

  • raven

    Far more likely, this is just standard pro-life rhetoric in which any drug that prevents a fertilized embryo from attaching is considered both an abortifacent and a euthanizer.

    Neither of which applies to BC pills or the Morning After pill. These are ovulation inhibitors.

    Xianity is just a bunch of lies strung together. That string gets longer and longer every year.

    PS You know who else had a contraception mandate for employer provided medical insurance? Sure, you do. A certain central European dictator from the mid 20th century. I’m sure old Adolph will make an appearance any minute now.

  • sinned34

    I get frustrated when liberals lie about things, but man, doesn’t it just seem like all the right wing has these days are lies piled upon lies?

  • colnago80

    Re raven @ #3

    PS You know who else had a contraception mandate for employer provided medical insurance? Sure, you do. A certain central European dictator from the mid 20th century. I’m sure old Adolph will make an appearance any minute now.

    Citation needed. I find this rather surprising as the Frankenberger regime in Nazi Germany was all gung ho about increasing the amount of cannon fodder available to the German armed forces.

  • raven

    Citation needed. I find this rather surprising …

    Well you should since I just made it up. This is sarcasm. And a near certainty somewhere in the future.

    Yes, the old Germans were into supplying cannon fodder. And making sure the ubermenschen were being born.

  • marcus

    cptdoom @ 2

    I must quote the imitable Louis in this context.

    “Oh, the huge manatee!”

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    ACA DOES cover euthanasia. It is even worse! It also covers the red Matrix pills, Ice-9, and nuke (the drug from Robocop 2)!!! Thanks, Obamacare.

  • raven

    Hum Reprod Update. 2004 Jul-Aug;10(4):341-8. Epub 2004 Jun 10.

    Mechanisms of action of mifepristone and levonorgestrel when used for emergency contraception.

    Gemzell-Danielsson K1, Marions L.

    Abstract

    An emergency contraceptive method is used after coitus but before pregnancy occurs. The use of emergency contraception is largely under-utilized worldwide. One of the main barriers to widespread use is concern about the mechanism of action. Recently, treatment with either 10 mg mifepristone or 1.5 mg of levonorgestrel has emerged as the most effective hormonal method for emergency contraception with very low side-effects. However, the knowledge of the mechanism of action of mifepristone and levonorgestrel in humans, when used for contraceptive purposes and especially for emergency contraception, remains incomplete. The objective of this review is to summarize available data on the effects of mifepristone and levonorgestrel on female reproductive functions relevant to the emergency use of the compounds.

    When summarized, available data from studies in humans indicate that the contraceptive effects of both levonorgestrel and mifepristone, when used in single low doses for emergency contraception,

    involve either blockade or delay of ovulation, due to either prevention or delay of the LH surge, rather than to inhibition of implantation.

    One of the often repeated lies of fundie xians is that BC pills and the Morning After pill are “abortion pills”. Including the Hobby Lobby kook, David Green.

    They aren’t. There is a fair amount of research on this point. The answer is:

    When summarized, available data from studies in humans indicate that the contraceptive effects of both levonorgestrel and mifepristone, when used in single low doses for emergency contraception,

    involve either blockade or delay of ovulation, due to either prevention or delay of the LH surge, rather than to inhibition of implantation.

    Ovulation inhibitors. I can’t imagine what it must be like being them. Waking up every morning hating anything and everything to do with reality and facts.

  • raven

    Cthulhu, borked the blockquotes. Once again.

    Hum Reprod Update. 2004 Jul-Aug;10(4):341-8. Epub 2004 Jun 10.

    Mechanisms of action of mifepristone and levonorgestrel when used for emergency contraception.

    Gemzell-Danielsson K1, Marions L.

    Abstract

    An emergency contraceptive method is used after coitus but before pregnancy occurs. The use of emergency contraception is largely under-utilized worldwide. One of the main barriers to widespread use is concern about the mechanism of action. Recently, treatment with either 10 mg mifepristone or 1.5 mg of levonorgestrel has emerged as the most effective hormonal method for emergency contraception with very low side-effects. However, the knowledge of the mechanism of action of mifepristone and levonorgestrel in humans, when used for contraceptive purposes and especially for emergency contraception, remains incomplete. The objective of this review is to summarize available data on the effects of mifepristone and levonorgestrel on female reproductive functions relevant to the emergency use of the compounds.

    When summarized, available data from studies in humans indicate that the contraceptive effects of both levonorgestrel and mifepristone, when used in single low doses for emergency contraception,

    involve either blockade or delay of ovulation, due to either prevention or delay of the LH surge, rather than to inhibition of implantation.

    One of the often repeated lies of fundie xians is that BC pills and the Morning After pill are “abortion pills”. Including the Hobby Lobby kook, David Green.

    They aren’t. There is a fair amount of research on this point. The answer is:

    When summarized, available data from studies in humans indicate that the contraceptive effects of both levonorgestrel and mifepristone, when used in single low doses for emergency contraception,

    involve either blockade or delay of ovulation, due to either prevention or delay of the LH surge, rather than to inhibition of implantation.

    Ovulation inhibitors. I can’t imagine what it must be like being them. Waking up every morning hating anything and everything to do with reality and facts.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    cptdoom “No, no, he said “youth in Asia” – he was complaining about the ACA covering students studying abroad.”

    When I was younger, I used to study abroad. I studied most of them, actually. Now it’s all I can do to muster up the energy to study just one of them.

  • eric

    Neither of which applies to BC pills or the Morning After pill. These are ovulation inhibitors.

    Thanks for the clarification/reminder.

    And yeah, I agree that this should really bork up HL’s religious exemption claim, though it doesn’t. I think a neutral party with an understanding of modern fundie christianty could buy that the anti-abortion sects have a “sincere religious” objection to abortifacents. I’m not saying I think they are right, I’m just saying an outsider can see how their objection is reasonably connected to their religious premises about souls and conception etc. But that connection simply doesn’t exist for ovulation inhibitors.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Neither of which applies to BC pills or the Morning After pill. These are ovulation inhibitors.

    That’s according to your so-called “embryology,” which is well-known to be a lie from the pit of Hell.

    The Bible, on the other hand, clearly teaches that those pills are murderous poisons. Not really, “euthanasia” since they cause the poor murdered baby to suffer unspeakable agonies both immediately and eternally.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    And even if it’s not true, that doesn’t make any difference. This is about sincerly held religious beliefs, not about whether those beliefs are true.

  • eric

    I suppose the “its an ovulaton inhibitor” defense suffers from another problem, which is that the religiobot could just respond “the religious belief which prevents me from paying for this is that any form of birth control is wrong. Doesn’t matter how the control is accomplished, the act of using medicine or prohphylaxis to prevent pregnancies is objectionable to my religion.”

  • coffeehound

    Contraceptive services means contraception, euthanasia, and abortion.

    One out of three ain’t bad for the average conservative talking point.

  • freehand

    eric: […]the act of using medicine or prohphylaxis to prevent pregnancies is objectionable to my religion.”

    .

    Yup. The problem is wanton women “getting away with” sex scott-free. Explaining will never do any good. I’m afraid that it’s rationalizations all the way down.

  • raven

    “the religious belief which prevents me from paying for this is that any form of birth control is wrong. Doesn’t matter how the control is accomplished, the act of using medicine or prohphylaxis to prevent pregnancies is objectionable to my religion.”

    Then David Green, Hobby Lobby CEO, has got some explaining to do.

    He only has…three kids. Where are the other ten he should have had?

    Oh that’s right. They use their personalities as a method of birth control.

    This really just illustrates why this whole issue is so stupid. What if your sincere require beliefs require women to use birth control and only have two children. Which in this stressed world of 7 billion people and growing, is a defensible belief.

    A lot of fundies are rabid anti-vaxxers as well. It’s one of their new issues. How about alcohol. Moslems can’t drink it. Pork same. Cows are forbidden to Hindus. Any medical care? Some cults are faith healers.

  • raven

    That’s according to your so-called “embryology,” which is well-known to be a lie from the pit of Hell.

    It’s more like reproductive physiology.

    But that won’t matter. They can toss that into the pit of Hell with everything else that we’ve discovered in the last 500 years.